The UK’s first Muslim life peer has offered a reward of 10 million pounds for the kidnapping of American President Barrack Obama, and former US President George ‘Dubya’ Bush.

Lord Nazir Ahmed (photo above) offered to fund the bounty to show support of Lashkar-e-Taiba – or ‘LeT’ Chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. LeT is described as “one of the largest and most active militant Islamist terrorist organizations in South Asia, operating mainly from Pakistan”

“The LeT believes that violent jihad is the duty of all Muslims and must be waged until eight objectives are met: ending persecution against Muslims, establishing Islam as the dominant way of life in the world, forcing infidels to pay jizya, fighting for the weak and feeble against oppressors, exacting revenge for killed Muslims, punishing enemies for violating oaths and treaties, defending all Muslim states, and recapturing occupied Muslim territory.”

LeT is designated a terror group by just about everybody including the US and the UK. Remember the Mubai terror attack where Muslim terrorists gunned down men, women and children, and mutilated a pregnant Jewish woman?

Yes, that was LeT at work.

If Lord Nazir Ahmed did say what he is alleged to have said, clearly he should be removed as a life peer and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Why did you have to single out the Jewish woman? I guess all the others were just “cheap blood”, “no-name”, “who cares” indians.
If Bush can offer a reward for binladen, I guess someone can offer a reward for Bush. To me, it seems the blood of westerners is far more valuable than the blood of I-raqis or Afghanis or whoever it is from any other part of the world that was killed by the west.
Guess what? I just searched for a list of those killed in mumbai, and you know what? I only found a list of those westerners killed, no mention of the 300+ ordinary people killed.

Really disappointing comments so far! Didn’t anyone notice the jingoistic bent of the “news” article? It asserts in paragraph 1 that Lord Ahmed has offered a reward for the kidnapping of the past and present US Presidents. In paragraph 2 it states that Lord Ahmed “offered to fund the bounty to show support for Lashkar -e-Taiba” a terrorist organisation. BUT, in the ;last paragraph it starts; “IF (my emphasis) Lord Nazir Ahmed did say what he is ALLEGED (my emphasis) to have said, clearly he should be removed as a life peer and prosecuted to the full extent of the law”. So, in the 2 last lines at the very end of the article what has consistently been reported as fact is suddenly and completely changed to a mere allegation. And it has clearly achieved the response it was designed for: a damning of Lord Ahmed, a repudiation of his character, hate for Muslims, irrespective of their stance on terrorism, and even one writer justifying the “fairness” of one religious grouping killing another! Astounding logic wouldn’t one say? People, please don’t let others push your buttons. READ and carefully analyse what is in print before you and reason before responding emotionally. Thanks.

What a to do! Whether this rant be true or false, let’s hope it will be dealt with by rule of law. What puzzles me is why Muslims keep claiming they are victims of hate? They see themselves as victims all the time. What”s the origin of this? Islam as as a faith sees itself as a proselytising and conquering religion so why this victim thing? I mean you sit there, as a Muslim man, saying that the females of your “Muslim community” are to be subjected all the time, as brain inferiors,if they are raped, kill them. No wonder we hate them, they are awful.

The fellow has been suspended by the Labour Party pending investigation. His elevation to the Peerage seems to have been in the name of political correctness; looking at his profile I don’t see self-evident peerage material there. And see also his remarks about the knighthood for Rushdie…a man , he says, “with blood on his hands”…now that really is rich.

Victor,
the claiming-to-be-a-victim thing is so that when you get killed “doing allahs work”
-you get to be a “martyr” -and then you get your reward in fictitious heaven.

islam is suicidal, except you must arrange for someone else to do the killing for you…so you become a martyr.
How phuktup is THAT?
Its the religion of peace with a serious death-wish in order to accomplish the end-game.
see how it works?

@victory
Victory, I see it quite differently form you my friend. I have three friends who are Muslims, and these three individuals are from three different parts of the world. And quite frankly, I know them all to be very peaceful and loving individuals. And if it is one thing I can say about these three individuals is this, they are more devoted to their Islamic faith in the empirical sense than any Christian I known thus far. I am I saying that I accept everything that the Islamic faith prescribed, certainly not. I’m also quite sure the there are things in our Christian faith that they would also repudiate.

Now, another point I want to focus on here is this, as far as marginalizing women in the Muslim world is concern. You have to remember that in the Western societies most of our value system is derived from the Judeo- Christian- Tradition, whereas, as in the East the people in this part of the world do not live by this value system. My friend there is not such thing as Universal Morality, what is right in one society in terms of conduct, could be quite wrong in another. If you examine early culture you would discover that most of them at one time, or the other, practice cannibalism. Now, in today world we would look upon this behavior as inhuman, and contrary to the standards of accepted decorum, but during our evolutionary development is was practically normal behavior my friend.

victor, I’m sorry to misrepresent your title, now I want to make it categorially clear, that I’m not here to engage you in a philosophical, nor an intellectual discourse. But merely express a point of view that I thought was
credible, when we start to moralize on others way of life, and religious dogma.

Whether the above story is fact or not it is clear to me that Islam is a threat to all other ways of life. When the world has been taken over by Islam then we will all find out how they feel about political correctness and philosophical or intellectual discourse, LISTEN UP PEOPLE in their minds it is their way and there is NO OTHER WAY. The middle of the road Muslims are happy to adopt that position at present because they are living in times and situations that have not yet forced them to make a choice, God forbid that day should ever come upon them.

newbie is on the money and understands the big view. sure bajan muslims are cool people -they await instructions when there numbers increase to more than 5% of the population there part of but for now they are cool. dont be fooled. dig deeper

Moslem, Jew, Christian…they are all ‘people of the Book’. Most Moslems are fundamentalist…the ‘Book’ is everything. Many Christians are not fundamentalist though, of course, some are…..so yes, you don’t find identical approaches to fundamentalism in the Christian world. Some of us reject and abhor it.

Since opening this post (yesterday) my computer is popping up that Malware is intervening to protect me from something or other. Are others experiencing the same thing? Does this email have a virus? Is it an Islamic take-over…err?

I think that we have to stop being accusatory when someone arbitrarily invokes the name of Islam, and try to examine meticulously, if what they are saying holds any validity.
You know as well as I do, that there are those who claim to Christians, and their lifestyle are quite the contrary.

Well, what do you know, maybe the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will also be offering a reward soon for the capture of alleged war criminals Dubya Bush and his faithful,eager to please sidekick, Tony “The Poodle” Blair.

Asia Times
April 17, 2012

BOOK REVIEW
Compelling case for Iraq war crime tribunal
The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times by Mohamed ElBaradei

Reviewed by Kaveh L Afrasiabi

This book, eloquently written by a former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a must read, both for the wealth of information it provides on the contentious issues of global nuclear diplomacy as well as for the passionate and compelling case that it presents for a war crime tribunal to prosecute United States and British leaders who instigated the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction.

In blunt yet sincere language steeped in international law, ElBaradei writes that in light of the US’s complete “disdain for international norms” in its invasion of Iraq, the United Nations should request an opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as to the legality of the Iraq war.

Convinced that the overwhelming weight of evidence favors a negative verdict if the ICJ ever braved such an initiative, ElBaradei then makes a case for the International Criminal Tribunal to “investigate whether this constitutes a war crime”. (pg 87)

Irrespective, ElBaradei is so morally outraged by the blatant pulverization of a sovereign Middle East country by a Western superpower and its allies that he also advises the Iraqis to demand war reparations – that is sure to amount to tens of billions of dollars.

If for nothing else, this book’s value – in putting self-righteous Western powers on the defensive and depicting them as essentially rogue states that have caused a new global anarchy by their willful exercise of power without much regard for the rights of others – is indispensable.

I dunno rossco, you seem to hint that there are some beans you would like to spill about the shady connections of Elbaradei and Afrasiabi to Iran and/or others which should lead us to discount their published opinion that Bush along with his accomplices and enablers should face war crimes trials. So why don’t you tell us what these connections and associations are.

At the same time, you can do the same for the author Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and a former Associate Editor at the Wall Street Journal. Please enlighten us as to what illicit and unacknowledged influences might have caused PCR to remarkably reach the same apparent conclusion as the compromised Elbaradei and Afrasiabi.

The Stench of American Hypocrisy
By Paul Craig Roberts

snip

The military regime that rules Burma just released from house arrest the pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The American media used the occasion of her release to get on Burma’s case for the absence of the rule of law. I’m all for the brave lady, but if truth be known, “freedom and democracy” America needs her far worse than does Burma.

I’m not an expert on Burma, but the way I see it the objection to a military government is that the government is not accountable to law. Instead, such a regime behaves as it sees fit and issues edicts that advance its agenda. Burma’s government can be criticized for not having a rule of law, but it cannot be criticized for ignoring its own laws. We might not like what the Burmese government does, but, precisely speaking, it is not behaving illegally.

In contrast, the United States government claims to be a government of laws, not of men, but when the executive branch violates the laws that constrain it, those responsible are not held accountable for their criminal actions. As accountability is the essence of the rule of law, the absence of accountability means the absence of the rule of law.

The list of criminal actions by presidents Bush and Obama, Vice President Cheney, the CIA, the NSA, the US military, and other branches of the government is long and growing. For example, both president Bush and vice president Cheney violated US and international laws against torture. Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union responded to Bush’s recent admission that he authorized torture with calls for a criminal investigation of Bush’s crime.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the ACLU reminded the US Department of Justice (sic)that “a nation committed to the rule of law cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.”

Rob Freer of Amnesty International said that Bush’s admission “to authorizing acts which constitute torture under international law” and which constitute “a crime under international law,” puts the US government “under obligation to investigate and to bring those responsible to justice.”

The ACLU and Amnesty International do not want to admit it, but the US government shed its commitment to the rule of law a decade ago when the US launched its naked aggression — war crimes under the Nuremberg standard — against Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies and deception.

@ GM
Anyone is free to google these people as I did. One was demonstrably pro-Iran while holding office.. Another is said to be the unofficial spokesman for Islam in the US. The third is anti-Israel and pushes conspiracy theories about 9:11. In short, they all have agendas and anyone reading them must keep that in mind.

The third is anti-Israel and pushes conspiracy theories about 9:11. In short, they all have agendas and anyone reading them must keep that in mind.

Well that being said, agendas or not, the facts as laid out by PCR of the Bush and Cheney et al contravention of US and international laws and treaties speak for themselves.

Personally I think Robert’s main agenda is to wake up his fellow countrymen in order to stop his government from using an exaggerated, and worse yet, a manipulated threat of terrorist boogeymen around ever corner to turn the USA into a de facto totalitarian dictatorship while there is perhaps still time for corrective action.

The well known author Naomi Wolfe, among others, has also been writing of similar fears on her part:

How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

by Naomi Wolfe

Believe me, you don’t want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. And yet, it’s exactly what is happening

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the “trespass bill”, which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to “turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” He said he felt humiliated: “It made me feel like less of a man.”

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices’ decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven’t been introduced into a prison population.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There’s the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that “former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex”. There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there’s the policy set up after the story of the “underwear bomber” to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the “pornoscanner”.

Believe me: you don’t want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

I wonder if BFP will give any coverage to the trial of Anders Brevik but somehow I doubt it because he’s a white Christian who found inspiration in the likes of Pamela Geller of atlasshrugged.com. Never mind that he killed seventy something people (without enough conviction to kill himself apparently) the MSM refeers to him as a mass killer rather than a terrorist.
I guess one needs to be a brown skinned Muslim to be a terrorist.

You did not see ‘facts’ – there was no analysis. You saw assertions masquerading as facts. But I’m sympathetic to the first two lines of your second paragraph….but then as they say …’the price of liberty is…..”

Anders Brevik ‘found inspiration’ in everybody from Lucille Ball to George Washington to Martin Luther King to the Taliban. By his own description he is not a Christian, nor have any ‘christians’ come forward to support him. His single mention of Pamela Geller was critical in that he did not agree with her. Read it for yourself.

Any attempt to draw an equivelence between the actions of a single, evil crazy and the millions of Muslims who believe in and pursue violent jihad is an obvious falsehood.

Oh well, it looks like Dubya is effectively off the hook anyway. Professor of Criminology at Drew University, Scott Bonn, says that while there are legal grounds for charging GW Bush with war crimes, no one will have the intestinal fortitude to take any action to charge Bush and his accomplices with war crimes, being fearful of the repercussions and consequences that would be visited on them by, in Bonn’s words, the 900 lb gorilla, i.e. the gov’t of the USA. See the Youtube video below.

Professor Bonn is the author of the book Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.

From the blurb about his book at Amazon:Mass Deception argues that the George W. Bush administration manufactured public support for the war on Iraq. Scott A. Bonn introduces a unique, integrated, and interdisciplinary theory called “critical communication” to explain how and why political elites and the news media periodically create public panics that benefit both parties. Using quantitative analysis of public opinion polls and presidential rhetoric pre- and post-9/11 in the news media, Bonn applies the moral panic concept to the Iraq war. He critiques the war and occupation of Iraq as violations of domestic and international law. Finally, Mass Deception connects propaganda and distortion efforts by the Bush administration to more general theories of elite deviance and state crime. .

All I care about at this moment is that it seems perfectly OK in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh, for instance, and I could go on about other Muslim countries, that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to throw a bottle of acid in a woman’s face for whatever reason. Reasons given “she thought she was too beautiful” “Someone told me she had sex with someone” or We didn’t get the dowry!

What everyone should realise is that in these countries there is a lot of intermarriage between cousins, often first cousins, which increases not just physical disabilities, such as hip displacements and diabetes and uterine disorders but also mental problems. This inter-marriage between close relatives going on is introducing lunatics into Western society and I think immigrants from these countries should be given DNA tests. No wonder they want to blow up the world, they are all nuts or educationally subnormal

You can just see them in your cities today. And at school with you children.

Victor, most of what you’re saying seems quite plausible, but you’ve fail to acknowledge one critical historical fact. You’ve mention that there are lot intermarriages between cousins, in many of the Islamic countries. This is probably true, but is must not be forgotten that Abraham married his haft- sister on his father’s side Sarah also . For future reference, is has been common practice during Moses time for one to marriage to their parental haft- sister. This behavior was also quite commonplace in the Roman Empire.

Victor, one note of caution sir, it is important the we understand that prior to Moses receiving the Ten- Commandment; the Nation of Israel did not live by Testimonies, Ordinances, laws, and Commandments. So I would assume that in the absence of the law, one has the right to exercise an unrestrained liberty. Remember now Islam has ascertained a lot of it religious dogma from Judaism, and Christianity.

I don’t care whether characters in the bible married each other’s close relatives, nothing to do with reality. Science proves that this practice causes genetic disorders of both body and brain. In small communities such as villages or small islands, or in the animal kingdom, degeneration of the species occurs. You only have to look at how modern zoos with programmes to maintain endangered species scrupulously try to enlarge the gene pool by removing related animals from each other in propagation. Look at what happens when overbreeding of prize dog species occurs. All sorts of genetic problems emerge such as Alsatians and chronic arthritis for example. It’s just a really bad idea to marry and procreate with your first cousin and gets worse when this happens for several generations in a row. You might ask, what if these individuals came from a long line of really smart and fit people? Would they not get fitter and smarter, generation after generation? Sadly, this is not the case, the reverse is true, the defects pile up.